Legal Opinion · Dissent

Bocanegra v. State

Indiana Court of Appeals

Decided June 22, 2012No. 20A03-1108-CR-361Published

1DissentSullivan, Senior Judge

I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion, which affirms the conviction for forgery, a Class C felony. Ind.Code § 35-43-5-2(b) (2006).

Proof of intent to defraud requires a showing that the defendant demonstrated “intent to deceive and thereby work a reliance and injury.” Wendling v. State, 465 N.E.2d 169, 170 (Ind.1984) (emphasis added); see also Diallo v. State, 928 N.E.2d 250, 252 (Ind.Ct.App.2010). With regard to proof of the basic requirement of an intent to deceive, the majority opinion relies heavily on Lohmiller v. State, 884 N.E.2d 903 (Ind.Ct.App.2008), in which a panel of…

2Cases cited7 opinions

  1. Beaman v. HedrickIndiana Court of Appeals · 1970
  2. Collins v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2009
  3. Jacobs v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 1994
  4. Wendling v. StateIndiana Supreme Court · 1984
  5. Diallo v. StateIndiana Court of Appeals · 2010

2 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API